Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill: What Makes an Action Good? (Essay Sample)

Utilitarianism
Name:
Institution:
Utilitarianism
Abstract
What makes an action good? This has been a fundamental philosophical question throughout the years. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill hold two divergent views on the matter. Stuart favors the philosophy of Utilitarianism which judges the moral value of actions by whether or not happiness is derived from them. Kant, on the other hand, believes that actions can only be morally correct if they are done out of duty. Many a time, individuals find themselves in the gray area where they cannot decide whether or not their actions are explicable if they lead to good outcomes. This is the case of Raymond ‘Red’ Reddington, a television series character who finds himself in this moral dilemma when he has to kill a criminal to save the life of an FBI agent.
Key words: Utilitarianism, Gray area
Utilitarianism
In the TV series ‘Blacklist’, Red kills a criminal, Kornish, in order to save the life of the FBI agent Elizabeth Keen. Is Red’s action justifiable? Mill (1879) believes that the inalienable reason for all human actions is the pursuit of happiness. According to his argument, all actions are justifiable if they lead to the attainment of happiness. People have several inconsistent moral beliefs, but the one thing that most people agree on is that pleasure is the only intrinsically good thing. Pain, on the other hand, is bad. One of the most forthright manifestations of happiness is pleasure. It goes without saying, therefore, that actions that lead to the achievement of happiness - pleasure more precisely – are permissible. According to this argument, Red is justified to kill Kornish because this action leads to his happiness. In his own words, he will do anything it takes to keep Elizabeth alive. This is the height of utilitarianism.
The argument that utilitarianism is centered on the pursuit of one’s pleasures lends it to the belief that it is a rather selfish philosophy. This could not be further from the truth. Mill believes that utilitarianism can only work when self-interests are balanced with the interests of others. In his treatise, he writes "When people...do not find in life sufficient enjoyment...the cause generally is, caring for nobody but themselves," (Mill, 1879). Utilitarianism is grounded on the belief that true happiness can only be attained when happiness is made a collective rather than individual objective. For Red, the happiness he seeks is unattainable if Elizabeth is not happy.
Another hole that has been pocked on the philosophy of utilitarianism is its potential to infringe upon the rights of others. In pursuit of one’s own happiness, one may overstep other people’s fundamental rights. Mill responds to these arguments by stating that the principal of utilitarianism has its own internal and external sanctions, as does any other system of morals. He sums up the external sanctions as the hope of approval on the one hand, and the fear of annoyance on the other, of our fellow creatures or of superior beings. By this argument, perhaps Red could be construed to have thought of earning the favor, not only of Liz, but also of the entire FBI by killing Kornish to save the life of Liz.
Conversely, Kantian philosophy holds that duty determines the morality of all actions (Kant, 1965). Kant argues that as long as people do what they are duty-bound to do, then their actions are justifiable. Red was neither obligated to kill Kornish nor to save Elizabeth. If anything, Red is himself a criminal who deserves to be put behind bars. This begs the question: would it be better to let Elizabeth be killed simply because it was not his duty to protect her?
Kant’s argument lacks a fundamental charge for it fails to clearly define the scope of duties for individuals. Are there duties which are assigned to us by the mere fact that we are human beings? Is it even possible to outline the entire array of undocumented duties that we are expected to perform by virtue of bei...